Jim Banville

Could you measure the gap between the top of the tire and the bottom of the fender arch. Mine is 3 1/2", but seems greater than other C240/320's I see around town. Before measuring it I would have guessed it was closer to 5" on my car. It sort of bugs me. Thanks

bagwell

wow - 3 1/2" !!?? I'll have to check mine...thinking of EIBACH springs to fix the prob!

MB-BOB

OK, dude, JUST for you... I made not one, but two trips to my C320 on the parking lot here at work... 35 degrees out. Brrrrr!

First trip, using one ruler and MB-BOB's Mk 1 Eyeball, I guestimated the measurements to be 3" front, 1 1/2" rear.

Second trip, using two rulers, one laid flat across the tire tread and projecting out the wheel well, with the second ruler measuring the vertical distance from the first ruler to the wheel arches: 2 3/4" front and 1 3/8" rear. Note, the car is facing down a 1-2 degree grade, so the front axle might be (slightly) loaded more than if on level ground. But I wouldn't think this would affect the measurements much.

If you haven't done so, I would remeasure your car using the two ruler method... more accurate.

My car may not be normal. jswedberg and I compared our two cars at a meeting earlier this Summer, and he commented that his C32 AMG looked no lower in front than my C320. On paper, the C32 should be lower.

KWiK

A more consistent measurement among cars would be from the center of the wheel hub straight up to the fender arch.

Lynn

That is not bad for a 50 year old Mk 1 eyeball.


I see the problem. Your cars were on asphalt or concrete when you compared them. Next time use paper.:p

MB-BOB

LOL Lynn! Took your smarty-pants pill this morning, didn't you?

Jim Banville

It looks like the c320 is 100 lb. heavier than the c240, and the c32 is 100 lb. heavier than the c320. I wonder if engine weight would make the c320 a little lower in front than the c240, since they use the same suspension, as opposed to the c32. Maybe that is why the c240 looks so high in the front...MB wanted a single suspension setup for the two models and set it up for the heavier c320. Hmm?

MB-BOB

According to MBUSA...

C240 manual = 3310 lbs Auto = 3420 lbs
C320 manual = 3360 lbs Auto = 3450 lbs

The C240 and C320 use exactly the same engine block. They share the same bore diameter, but the 3.2L motor has a longer stroke. So, I don't believe that the C320 sits lower because its motor weighs more. Comparing like transmisisons, it appears that the actual weight difference between manuals is 50lbs, 30 lbs in the automatics. (So, your C240 Auto is only 30 lbs lighter than my C320 auto, right?)

Most of the weight differential is accounted for by additions to the ductwork within the dash to add sensors and filters for the Climatronic system, and several additional parts to support the memory seating, beefier Bose system speakers (and more speakers) etc. All of this weight is more or less evenly distributed in the cabin of the car, not over the front axle.

MarkL

Bob, could you provide one of your engineering diagrams? It's been a while since we saw one !

MB-BOB

:p :p :p (LOL!)

amdeutsch

OK, here we go. Forgot the level but used 2 rulers. First set of numbers MB-BOBs way, second set from the center of the MB star:
1) LF = 2 3/4"
2) LR = 1 3/8"
3) RF = 2 7/8" (MY CAR IS CROOKED, LEMON LAW, LEMON LAW )
4) RR = 1 3/8"


a) LF = 15 1/4"
b) LR = 14 1/4"
c) RF = 15 3/8"(MY CAR IS CROOKED, LEMON LAW, LEMON LAW )
d) RR = 14 1/4"

MarkL

OK, mine's similar -- didn't have time for the two ruler method (+ I couldn't find a 2nd ruler!). Tried to measure from the center of the star (full tank of gas):

LF - 15 3/8
LR - 14
RF - 15 3/4
RR - 14 3/8

Technical question -- when you use the two rulers, I suppose the measurement is to the top of the ruler held on top of the tire. The thickness of that ruler may be different for different people...

MB-BOB

Technical answer, silly beans... stand the end of the vertical measuring ruler on the horizontal surface of the tire ruler. True, this discounts the thickness of the horizontal ruler. So, technically, if you use a traditional wooden ruler for the tire ruler, you could add the thickness of the ruler (what, 1/8"?) I didn't do this... I haven't been wearing my technical thinking cap since the spinner fell off...

Then again, technically, the amount of tire tread present would affect the measurement, too. New tires, you prob should subtract the thickness of the ruler. Worn tires, add. Or would you add/subtract half the thickness, since you're using only one side of the tire? Whoa, sudden headache. Going to bed, now...

Jim Banville

When I go to mbusa.com and do a side-byside comparison, it has, " Curb Weight (C240) 3,310 lb manual, 3,360 lb automatic (C320) 3,430 lb manual, 3,450 lb automatic". Looks like the manual C320 is 120 lb. heavier and the auto is 90 lb. heavier. I don't think the plastic ducting for the climatronic are that heavy I could see the motors for the power seats in the stock C320 weighing like 10 lb. or so, but not much more.

MB-BOB

Jim, I thought you were wondering whether the 3 1/2" gap at front was NORMAL for YOUR car. Your C240 has an auto transmission, and my C320 has an automatic transmission. According to the MBUSA Specs, my car weighs 30lbs more than yours, not enough weight to account for any difference in the gap between our two (similarly equipped) cars.

I don't think it would be a meaningful comparison to measure a manual shift car against an automatic...

Jim Banville

See my previous post. C240 auto weighs 3,360 lb. C320 auto weighs 3,450 lb. That's a 90 lb. difference. These figures come from the side-by-side comparison on mbusa.com. I guess either the page I'm looking at or the one you're looking at has a typo. After going to mbusa.com, select C240 from the model drop down menu. Then select side-by-side comparison with C320. After that page loads scroll down to the weights.

I don't think that other than the engine (unknown weight difference) , power seats (motors and electronics may weigh 10 lb.) and climatronic (second fan an additional ducting may weigh 2 lb.), there aren't any other significant differences between the two base models, are there? Now, if the only difference between the two engines is the stroke length, what would be the reason for creating an engine with a shorter stroke? It can't be cheaper to make the shorter stroke engine, can it? Maybe the 3.2L engine uses a taller, therefore heavier, block.

amdeutsch

How true it is. In my world we would cover the difference as NRE = Non-Recurring Engineering costs. In the real world, with the marketing sales monkeys at the helm, people are conditioned to pay more for a bigger engine. Look at projected resell of equally equipped C240s and C320s (only difference being the engine) and compare that as a percentage to original MSRP. More power means more profit.


Now to your weight difference. Yes, motors can weigh more than expected. There will also be additional support structure, wiring (weight here will amaze you), additional features (BOSE, climatronic add-ons, etc).

Just my $0.02

Jim Banville

Yeah, I forgot about that Bose amp. I'd guess it probably weighs 5 lb.

MB-BOB

Yes, Jim, I can read. It's the website. If you look up each model independently under specifications (I didn't think to do a compare) you'll find the figures I quoted. MBUSA is currently down for maintenance as I type this, so I can't document the search tree I used, but I can assure you, the figures I quote were there.

Also, the 2003 brochure quotes the web comp figures, but the 2001 brochure quotes 3,360lbs C240 auto vs. 3,395lbs C320 auto = 35 lb difference. Do you have a 2002 brochure?

Who knows? They say the Coupe's Panorama roof only weighs 44 lbs more, too. Yea, right.

Regardless, using your figures from the website, the 90lb range amounts to a 2.5% difference between models... using my figures from the website yields a 1% difference. In the former instance, 90 lbs is still less than the variance between an empty vs full gas tank (16 gal X 8lbs per = 128lbs), and my car's butt doesn't sit differently at either extreme.